LOSING The Right That Guarantees Your Freedom!

Photo Credit: Cheezburger.com
Photo Credit: Cheezeburger.com

Restored: 8/22/22
Those around the world who are standing for freedom, are looking to US to STAND!

Everyone is screaming about their rights…  Women’s Rights, Victims Rights, LGBTQ Rights,  Gender Identification Rights, The Right to Kill the Unborn, Animal Rights, Immigration Rights, Intellectual Property Rights, etc…

SADLY, people fail to recognize that the MOST IMPORTANT RIGHT they have is being taken from them.  IF we lose this MAIN RIGHT… we lose ALL RIGHTS.  

The right to ownership of Private Property, whether that be your car, you dog, your television, your house, your land… If you don’t OWN anything you have NO CONTROL over your own life.  

1 year ago
video imageTo Watch this Video on BitChute Click the Title Link Below:

Private Property Rights According to the King James Bible (Leviticus 27)

This video was shadow-banned on YouTube!
3 years, 10 months ago

video imageTo Watch this Video on BitChute Click the Title Link Below:

This is the key foundational pillar which the Globalist Left is trying to destroy. Without it ALL of your Rights and Freedoms evaporate, you’re reduced to little more than chattel, and everything you own becomes property of The State.
2 years ago

video imageTo Watch this Video on BitChute Click the Title Link Below:

We’ll cover the 2030 / Great Reset agenda, a dream, and a solution to call out these officials.
1 year ago

video imageTo Watch this Video on BitChute Click the Title Link Below:

Partnership between selected developers & the government. Most land you now live on will be made off limits to humans. You will have no rights to property or land & very little else.¨
1 year, 3 months ago


No freedom is secure if your property rights are not secure.   Neal Boortz



Castle doctrine From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person’s abode or any legally occupied place (for example, a vehicle or home) as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries (see below) invoke comparable principles in their laws.

Depending on the location, a person may haveduty to retreat to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines lessen the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted within one’s own home. Deadly force may either be justified, the burdens of production and proof for charges impeded, or an affirmative defense against criminal homicide applicable, in cases “when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another”.[1] The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in many jurisdictions. Castle doctrines may not provide civil immunity, such as from wrongful death suits, which have a much lower burden of proof.

Justifiable homicide[2] in self-defense which happens to occur inside one’s home is distinct, as a matter of law, from castle doctrine because the mere occurrence of trespassing—and occasionally a subjective requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine, the burden of proof of fact is much less challenging than that of justifying a homicide in self-defense. With justifiable homicide in self-defense, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, against all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder’s mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide in self-defense provision pertaining to one’s domicile, it has a castle doctrine protecting the estate and exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom. The doctrine can be misused as a pretext for extrajudicial punishment in private spaces. The use of this legal principle in the United States has been controversial in relation to a number of cases in which it has been invoked, including the deaths of Japanese exchange student Yoshihiro Hattori and Scottish businessman Andrew de Vries.


The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western civilization since the age of the Roman Republic.[3] In English common law the term is derived from the dictum that “an Englishman’s home is his castle” (see Semayne’s case). This concept was established as English law by the 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628:[4]

For a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man’s home is his safest refuge].[4]

English common law came with colonists to the New World, where it has become known as the castle doctrine.[4] The term has been used in England to imply a person’s absolute right to exclude anyone from their home, although this has always had restrictions, such as bailiffs having increasing powers of entry since the late-20th century.[5]

According to 18th-century Presbyterian minister and biblical commentator Matthew Henry, the prohibition of murder found in the Old Testament contains an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the thief owes no blood-debt to the home-defender; but if the thief lives, he owes a blood-debt to the home-defender and must make restitution.”[6][7]

In the early United States

“Trespassers will be shot” sign

By the 18th century, many US state legal systems began by importing English common law such as Acts of Parliament of 2 Ed. III (Statute of Northampton), and 5 Rich. II (Forcible Entry Act 1381) in law since 1381—which imposed criminal sanctions intending to discourage the resort to self-help.[8][9] This required a threatened party to retreat, whenever property was “involved” and resolve the issue by civil means.

Then as now, there were English politicians who were for or against the use of self-help over state-help. William Blackstone, in Book 4, Chapter 16[10] of his Commentaries on the Laws of England,[11] proclaims that the laws “leave him (the inhabitant) the natural right of killing the aggressor (the burglar)” and goes on to generalize in the following words:

And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man’s house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully;[12] quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus uniusquisque civium?[13] For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nuisancers, and incendiaries: and to this principle it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.

Not only was the doctrine considered to justify defense against neighbors and criminals, but any of the Crown’s agents who attempted to enter without a proper warrant as well. Prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution share a common background with current castle doctrine laws.[citation needed]

In 1841, The Preemption Act was passed to “appropriate the proceeds of the sales of public lands… and to grant ‘pre-emption rights’ to individuals” who were already living on federal lands (commonly referred to as “squatters“). During this same period, claim clubs sprung up all over the US advocating vigilance and the castle doctrine. This was in concurrence with the culture of manifest destiny which led to westward expansion and the American Indian Wars, the last of which ended by the 1920s.

On the American frontier

On the American frontier, the doctrine of no duty to retreat extended outside a residence. It asserted that a man in an altercation that he did not provoke was not obliged to flee from his attacker, but was free to stand his ground and defend himself. A state Supreme Court justice wrote in 1877,[14]

Indeed, the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed.

Current position

“I don’t call 911 (with a pistol image)” sign in Texas

Today, the penal and civil forcible-entry laws of most American states forbid the use of force in the recovery of possession of land.[15] At most the Castle Doctrine is an affirmative defense for individuals inevitably charged with criminal homicide,[16] not a permission or pretext to commit homicide—which is generally unlawful. A minority of states permit individuals who have the right of immediate possession of land to use reasonable force to regain possession of that land,[17] with Texas being the only state to allow the use of deadly force to regain possession of land or property.[18]

The term “make my day law” came to be used in the United States in 1985 when Colorado passed a law that shielded people from any criminal or civil liability for using force against a home invader, including deadly force.[19] (The law’s nickname is a reference to the line “Go ahead, make my day” (meaning ‘do something so I have an excuse to kill you’) uttered by actor Clint Eastwood‘s character “Dirty Harry” Callahan in the 1983 police film Sudden Impact.)

Either you have the right to own property or you are property!  Wayne Haige(?)

That is called slavery… A slave owns nothing.  Everything they do, create or acquire belongs to their master.


*** For those who feel led to support this channel and message: https://www.paypal.me/savedsoberawake/ Remember to bookmark my website: https://shakingmyheadproductions.com Ordo Ab Cho is the Latin phrase for “Order Out of Chaos”. Professor Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a Freemason and a political and social scientist at the University of Berlin (1817-1831), maintained that man could shape history and achieve ultimate peace only through repetitive episodes of controlled conflict between opposing forces. Hegel advocated the idea that men must create, manipulate and manage that conflict in order to create a pre-determined outcome – the controlled change, the synthesis. Bible Prophesies Chaos Ahead – The present turmoil we find ourselves in is child’s play compared to the world upheaval just ahead as foretold in the Bible. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. Rev 9:15 Get your homes in order friends! Time is short! Jesus Saves! Follow Him! Video Resources: * SMHP may not agree with everything from the content producers we share. Apply critical thinking and use discernment to come to your own conclusions regarding the content in the videos / links. ……………………………………………………………………….. Truthstream Media – https://www.youtube.com/user/TRUTHstr… …………………………………. aminutetomidnite – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC8o… …………………………………. ENDING SONG by: Debra Snipes ……………………………………………………………………….. Please do you own research on the content in the video. We are just sharing what we see and always appreciate relevant feedback. Please be respectful of others when commenting. This is a learning channel where we help each other put the pieces together. Comments reviewed typically within 12 hours. God is in control and he honors every promise made to man. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6 “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;” Ephesians 1:7 God bless you and your families. Know Jesus! Repent of your sins. Let the Potter mold his clay into something wonderful. http://savedsoberawake.com/help-build… – One Time & Monthly Investment http://smhproductions.blogspot.com/ – Blog https://www.bitchute.com/channel/shak… – Bitchute https://www.facebook.com/smh.prod.52 – Facebook https://shakingmyheadproductions.com – Main Website


19 Feb 2021

⁣Professor Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a Freemason and a political and social scientist at the University of Berlin (1817-1831), maintained that man could shape history and achieve ultimate peace only through repetitive episodes of controlled conflict between opposing forces. Hegel advocated the idea that men must create, manipulate and manage that conflict in order to create a pre-determined outcome – the controlled change, the synthesis.


IF you have not already seen the following articles on my webpage…check them out:  

THE UN IS NOT YOUR FRIEND – Part 8 – ReWILDING Project – Part 2

THE UN IS NOT YOUR FRIEND – Part 9 – REWILDING – Part 3 – RESOURCES AND Further Information



Global Diet

The Global Diet – A Matter of Life or Deaths
Scientific Breakthrough for Animal Lovers!


The elite who run the world having been herding us toward the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT for a very long time.  They have spent billions of dollars to learn the very best way to prepare you and present their plan to you in a way you will not only receive it, but embrace it.  Now, with AI, they have had opportunity to run every possible scenario and receive the best possible plan from the AI mind.   

Let me remind you that the elite already own 90% or more, of the wealth of the world.  Believe me the will NEVER include their wealth in common with the rest of us.  You better wake up and realize they are not giving anything away.  THEY ARE SELLING YOU their plan.  When they promise you peace and security and a guaranteed income… the price you will pay is your soul.  In return for what pittance they provide for you, you will give up EVERYTHING, including your freedom and your right to serve the GOD of your choice.  You will become their slave, forever.  They will own you, mind, body and soul.  THEY will regulate your every thought, word and deed.  They will tell you when to lie down and when to rise up and everything in between.  Anyone who fails to comply or entertains any negative thoughts in regard to their rule…  will find themselves homeless, helpless and starving to death.  


Photo Credit: signsofthemountains.com


The following is a list of quotes about property Rights.  I recommend them highly.


The right to own and use your property is the guardian of every other right. Without it, your freedom to exercise every other right is limited.

But too often, government limits the responsible and productive use of property or tries to take it without providing the compensation required by the Constitution.

Property Rights Quotes

Quotes tagged as “property-rights” Showing 1-23 of 23

Ludwig von Mises

“A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.”
― Ludwig von Mises

Arthur Miller

Our system was not set up to for the government to be able to do with a man’s kingdom what they want. It was set up to protect that man’s kingdom, to allow him to feel that his borders, no matter how great or small, would always be secure and that he would always be allowed to defend them. The Supreme Court took that right away with their eminent domain ruling back in 2005. The governments have taken advantage of that eminent domain ruling, and you, the media, have failed at protecting citizens.”
― Tit Elingtin, Eminent Domain
“Everyone should feel comfortable they are going to remain in their homes until their dying days. We should never be uneasy or unsure of where our home is in the United States of America.”
― Tit Elingtin, Eminent Domain
“Capitalism is not a form of government. Capitalism is a symptom of freedom. It is the result of individual rights, which include property rights.”
― A.E. Samaan

Peter Singer

“Whereas the property-owning middle class could win freedom for themselves on the basis of rights to property–thus excluding others from the freedom they gain–the property-less working class possess nothing but their title as human beings. Thus they can liberate themselves only by liberating all humanity.”
― Peter Singer, Marx: A Very Short Introduction

The right to property does not apply only to land or housing.  The RIGHT TO PROPERTY is the fundamental right of self determination.  The right to own and use whatever we hold in any manner we choose.  No one should have the right to take away even the slightest item from even a homeless person.  Whatsoever that persons holds belongs to them, even if it is just in a buggy or tent parked at a shelter or encampment.  That is what gives us our sense of humanity.  That is my opinion.
“Nowhere did our Founders lay out a plan for our government to attempt to ensure equal outcomes for citizens at the expense of those who excelled in the American environment of freedom and liberty. It was not their intent to create a system that allowed government to punish one class in order to unjustly reward another class to “level the playing field“ while at the same time buying votes.”
― Daniel Rundquist
“The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the lives and property of its citizens.”
― Mike Klepper
Helen Raleigh
“The history of China’s “land reform” was written in the tears and blood of landowners like my great-grandfather. But the 300 million poor Chinese farmers were victims too. They gave the Communist Party their popular support, hoping to improve their living standards by taking property away from landowners. Instead, they became stepping stones for the Party to abolish private property rights once and for all.”
― Helen Raleigh, Confucius Never Said
Hilaire Belloc
“When men say, for instance (by a false metaphor), that each member of the public should feel himself an owner of public property – such as a Town Park – and should therefore respect it as his own, they are saying something which all our experience proves to be completely false. No man feels of public property that it is his own; no man will treat it with the care or the affection of a thing which is his own; still less can a man express himself through the use of a thing which is not his own, but shared in common with a mass of other men.”
― Hilaire Belloc, An Essay on the Restoration of Property